MINUTES DRAFT
JULY 1, 2004 – 6:40 P.M., CITY COMMISSION MEETING ROOM, FIRST FLOOR OF CITY HALL AT SIXTH AND MASSACHUSETTS STREET, LAWRENCE, KANSAS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Goans, Mr. Hannon, Mr. Hicks, Mr. Santee, Mr. Fizell, Mr. Herndon and Mr. Lane
STAFF PRESENT: Mr. Patterson, Mr. Tully and Ms. Saker
ITEM NO. 1: COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were noted:
· Indication of withdrawal of application at 4137 Wimbledon Drive
· Memo from Staff requesting/recommending deferral of project at 1632 Alabama to obtain site plan with correct site measurements.
· Letter from First Christian Church regarding of-street parking for the project at 1045 Kentucky
· Letter from adjacent property owners related to project at 1416 Tennessee
· Letter from area residents regarding project at 3503 W. 9th Court
· Request for extension of variances granted for The Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints.
· Notice from Mr. Fizell that he will be leaving the Board and moving out of state. The Board thanked Mr. Fizell for his service and involvement.
CONSIDERATION OF DEFERRAL REQUESTS
1632 Alabama: After publication, it was found that lot dimensions shown on the site plan were incorrect. The architect had indicated willingness to accept Staff’s recommendation to obtain a correct plan before Board consideration. No one was present to represent the applicant.
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Hicks to defer the project at 1632 Alabama to the August 2004 meeting.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
There was considerable discussion about granting Staff’s request to defer Item 5, 1416 Tennessee, until action was taken by the Historic Resources Commission. See that Item for detail.
DECLARATION OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
· Chairman Herndon said he received an email from the applicant for the project at 1416 Tennessee and would supply the Board and Staff with a copy during discussion of that Item.
· Chairman Herndon said he had spoken about the consideration process for the project at 1045 Kentucky with a member of the public, Todd Wyant.
· The Board had received an email from Oread Neighborhood Association President, Candy Davis, relating an email discussion between herself and the Planning Director regarding 1416 Tennessee.
· Mr. Goans had spoken with the Historic Preservation planner about 1416 Tennessee.
· Mr. Fizell had discussed the project at 1045 Kentucky with his downstairs neighbor, Carolyn Micek.
· Mr. Lane had talked to one of his clients, Joy diMaranville about the general application process prior to submittal of the project at 1045 Kentucky.
· No abstentions were declared.
ITEM NO. 2: MINUTES
One change was requested to the minutes of the June 3rd meeting - removing Mr. Goans from the list of those present.
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Lane to approve the minutes of the June 3, 2004 meeting as revised.
Motion carried 5-0-2, with Mr. Goans and Mr. Hick abstaining due to their absence from the June meeting.
Swearing in of witnesses.
ITEM NO. 3: 4137 WIMBLEDON DRIVE
B-05-10-04: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. Said request is specifically to vary from the provisions of Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 25’ front building setback for structures from the front property line. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the setback to 21’ to allow for the construction of a garage addition along the south side of the existing residence. The request is submitted for the following legally described property: Lot 19, Racquet Club No. 2 Subdivision in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Said described property is generally known as 4137 Wimbledon Drive. Submitted by Gene and Jalon Abernathy, property owners of record. [Deferred from the June 3 meeting at the request of the planning staff.]
This item was withdrawn by the applicant.
ITEM NO. 4: 1621 NEW HAMPSHIRE STREET
B-05-12-04: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The first variance is from the provisions in Section 20-1312 of said City Code, which limits the size for an accessory structure to no greater than 30 percent of the required rear yard area. The applicant is asking for variance approval to construct an accessory building size of 528 s.f., which is 78 s.f. larger than permitted by Code (450 s.f. allowed). The second variance is from the provisions of Section 20-1311 of said City Code, which requires an accessory structure to be set back from an interior property line a minimum of 5’. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the proposed garage to be placed 1’ off of the south and west property lines. The requested variances would allow the applicant to construct a new two-car garage. The property is located at 1621 New Hampshire Street and is legally described as: The South 50’ of Lot 11, Block 13, in Babcock’s Enlarged Addition in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Submitted by Mike Myers with Hernly Associates, for Patrick and Linda Slimmer, property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully introduced the Item, a request for a variance from the maximum rear yard coverage of an accessory building to allow a replacement garage of 528 square feet, which was 78 square feet more than allowed by Code. A second variance was requested to reduce the minimum side yard setback from 5’ to 1’ to accommodate the proposed garage.
Mr. Tully noted the proximity of the existing 16’ X 16’ garage to the fence, the primary structure and the neighbor’s garages. The site plan showed the adjacent garages to the west and south were built at 2’ and 3’ from the property line, respectively.
The applicant proposed removing the existing garage and concrete slab, reconstructing a new garage measuring 22’ X 24’ and applying concrete slab to the remaining driveway per city Code.
In Staff’s opinion, the 1’ side yard setback proposed by the applicant was not adequate and the Staff Report recommended a 2’ setback to provide a minimum suitable separation from the adjacent property. It was noted that the proposed structure could be moved slightly to the north to create a 2’ setback.
The Historic Resources Commission had approved the project at the proposed size, and Staff recommended approval of the 528 square foot garage since it met the template set by past Board actions. However, Staff did not support the requested reduction in the side yard setbacks and recommended the south and west side yard setbacks measure 2’ from the property line to the new garage.
It was noted that the proposed garage had a second story that would have electricity and would be accessed by internal pull-down stairs. It was verified that the applicant understood the second story could not be used as living quarters.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Mike Meyers of Hernley Architects and the applicant, Pat Slimmer, were present to answer questions. They said it would be possible to work with the 2’ sideyard setbacks suggested by Staff.
PUBLIC HEARING
No member of the public spoke on this Item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Fizell, seconded by Mr. Goans to approve the project at 1621 New Hampshire, subject to the following conditions:
1. The new garage shall be no larger than 22’ X 24’, 528 square feet; and
2. The new garage shall be set back no less than 2’ from the south and west property lines.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 5: 1416 TENNESSEE STREET
B-06-13-04: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. Said requests are specifically to vary from the provisions of Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 25’ front building setback; and, a 5’ interior side yard setback for structures from the property lines. The applicant is requesting variances to reduce these building setbacks to a 14.5’ front yard, and 3’ interior side yard setbacks. The applicant is also seeking approval of a variance from the provisions of Section 20-1506(a)(3) of said City Code allowing an uncovered stair and necessary landing to project up to three feet into the required yard setback. The request would allow the existing stairs that extend beyond the property line to remain. The applicant is also seeking variance approval for the number of off-street parking spaces required for a boarding house having 12 bedrooms to be reduced from 9 spaces required by Sections 20-610.5 and 20-1212 of said City Code, to a minimum of 5 parking spaces. These requests are submitted for the following legally described property: Lot 8, Parker Addition in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Said described property is generally known as 1416 Tennessee Street. Submitted by Lance Adams with Paul Werner Architects, for D & D Rentals the property owners of record.
DISCUSSION OF DEFERRAL
Chairman Herndon distributed copies of the email communication sent to him asking about how the new code would regulate boarding houses, specifically the parking requirements for this type of use. Discussion with Staff determined that the new Code was identical to the existing Code on this subject.
It was noted that more than one communication had been received from area residents and representatives expressing concern about parking issues. The adjacent neighbor was also concerned about the encroachment of the existing external stairway into his own property.
Mr. Patterson explained the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) recommended and Historic Resources Administrator (HRA) requested the Board defer this issue until the HRC made a determination. The project had been presented to the HRC in June, but was deferred because HRC did not feel enough information was provided at that time to make a decision.
Chairman Herndon pointed out the applicant had to provide more detailed information for HRC consideration than for BZA. He suggested the process could be simplified for the applicant if projects went to the BZA before the HRC. If the BZA denied the application, the applicant was saved the time and expense of preparing necessary information for the HRC. He did not see any advantage to delaying the applicant and noted that the ‘order’ of HRC/BZA appearances was not a written requirement.
Mr. Goans responded that this was an issue he had addressed several times. He felt strongly that it was important to make a final decision about which body – the BZA or the HRC should hear common projects first. He noted that, although it was not regulatory, it had been precedent for many years that the HRC heard such issues first, acting in its capacity as an advisory body to the legislative one (BZA). This order had been upset while Staff was temporarily without an HCA and Mr. Goans suggested this order should be reestablished and codified through amendments to the by-laws of both bodies (HRC & BZA).
It was noted that the application deadline for HRC was extended for the applicant to make a full submittal and the information presented up to the night of the HRC meeting still did not meet basic application requirements (to-scale elevations, material specifications, etc. were missing).
It was suggested that the additional information required by the HRC ensured the project was appropriately thought out in advance. There was discussion about whether requiring this level of consideration prior to the BZA meeting was fair and appropriate. Some members felt it was unfair to delay this applicant to meet a rule that was not codified, and that it would save the applicant the needless time and effort of preparing for the HRC if the BZA denied the application. Others felt it would be inappropriate to change the process that had been precedent for several years and taking the opinion of the advisory body (HRC) into consideration was best.
Chairman Herndon suggested that, in light of the request from Staff and the HRC, it would be more appropriate for the HRC to act on this project first. He asked Staff to begin the process adopting a formal policy on this issue.
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, was allowed to speak on behalf of the applicant regarding Staff’s recommendation for deferral. He agreed that Staff “bent over backwards” to help the applicant meet the (extended) HRC submittal deadline, but he was subsequently surprised at the HCA’s recommendation for deferral or denial based on lacking information.
Mr. Werner said the HCA was not concerned about which body acted on the project first, and that the HRC was not concerned with issues of size and massing. He said the HRC was more concerned about architectural details and he was sure the applicant was “going to solve their (HRC’s) problems.”
Mr. Werner asked, as a side-issue, that the city look at revising the entire submittal schedule. He felt the timelines and deadlines were unrealistic and difficult to meet.
Chairman Herndon called for a show of hands, and a majority indicated they would like to move ahead with consideration of this Item tonight (Mr. Lane, Hicks, Hannon and Santee). It was determined the Item would proceed.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson described the existing structure as a three-story residential structure divided into 7 separate apartments with 15 bedrooms. The applicant intended to remodel the structure into a boarding house with 12 bedrooms. Multiple variances were requested to accommodate this proposal:
1. Reduction in the front yard setback from 25’ to 14.5 feet;
2. Reduction in the interior side yard setback from 5’ to 3’;
3. Allow existing northern exterior stairway to remain, extended 3 feet into the yard setback and over the adjacent property line; and
4. Reduce off-street parking requirement from 9 spaces to 5.
Mr. Patterson explained that, as a Boarding House was defined, the property may have 12 bedrooms but as many as 24 occupants. It was pointed out that site plans generally included a note stipulating occupancy, but the site plan would not go before the City Commission until the BZA and HRC took action.
It was clarified that the existing use had 7 bedrooms, required 15 parking spaces and provided 3. The proposed use would have 12 bedrooms/12 occupants. It required 9 spaces and would provide 5.
There was extensive discussion about the parking challenges in this area, establishing Staff’s concern that a trend of converting residential homes into boarding houses may put undue stress on the existing problem in the future.
If the Item were not deferred to wait on HRC action, Staff recommended denial of the variances on the basis that the request(s) did not meet the Five Criteria and the proposed use was too intense for this location.
It was verified that the applicant proposed constructing a 12’ X 24’ addition (2-story with basement) to the primary structure. The information submitted did not state whether this additional space would be used for more bedrooms or to accommodate other rehabilitation.
It was established that the front yard setback requested was an existing condition, as was the north side yard with the stairway. Extension of the side yard encroachment was proposed to allow for a larger deck and to provide ADA accessibility via ramps. It was established that, without the deck, a waiver for alternate compliance with the sideyard setback requirements would be possible.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Paul Werner, Paul Werner Architects, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said the applicant did not request a variance for the existing stairway encroaching over the adjacent property line. This staircase would be removed and replaced with internal access. He added that a variance was not required for the southern deck, since the 3’ requested conformed to deck regulations.
Although he understood parking was a serious issue, Mr. Werner said he was “stunned” by Staff’s recommendation for denial. He said the request was very similar to a request that was approved on Ohio Street, with nearly identical points argued in the Staff Reports but this case had a recommendation for denial. Staff responded that a significant amount of square footage was being added in this case. Mr. Werner countered that an addition was proposed for the Ohio property as well.
Mr. Werner was asked to address the issue of hardship. He replied that, without the variance, the structure could remain in its existing non-conforming state as 7 separate apartments, or the remodel could be done in 10% increments to avoid the necessity of a building permit (which triggered the BZA review).
Mr. Werner said again he understood parking was “clearly a big issue” and that this had been discussed with Staff. He noted that the project would reduce the number of required spaces from 15 to 9, and increase the number of spaces provided from 3 to 6 (including 1 handicapped accessible).
Mr. Werner said he was also surprised by the letter of opposition from the Oread Neighborhood Association, since he thought the neighborhood was pleased with the work done on Ohio Street. The letter referenced one individual buying several homes in the area and the association’s concern that each of these houses would be similarly converted. This would significantly impact the existing parking problems. Mr. Werner said John Davis, the purchaser referenced, may indeed make boarding house conversions to some of the properties. However, not all of the newly-bought homes were suited to this type of use.
The applicant asked the Board to revise Staff’s findings of fact and determine that the project met the Five Criteria. Mr. Werner offered to provide the Board with the Staff Report for the Ohio Street project to assist in this modification.
Staff noted differences between this project and the one on Ohio Street.
· Ohio Street has parking on both sides of the street, while Tennessee is a busier street with parking on only one side.
· The Scholarship Halls were approved on Ohio Street with the understanding that additional nearby parking may be available at the University.
· Additional information about congested parking conditions in the area and concerns about boarding house uses have been noted.
It was established that there was currently no intent to charge the boarding house residents for parking.
Mr. Werner responded to several questions from the Board:
· He agreed it was fair to say this project would reduce the parking pressure in the area by reducing the number of required spaces and increasing the number provided.
· He “believed the stairs would be gone” and no variance was requested.
· The applicant would be able to reduce the deck from its proposed size, but would not like to be restricted to less than 5’
PUBLIC COMMENT
Greg Seibel, area resident, explained that only three legitimate parking spaces were currently provided, more than three cars regularly parked there. He felt it was therefore not accurate to say this project would increase available parking.
Mr. Seibel was concerned that the bedrooms in the remodeled boarding house would be bigger than the existing apartments, which would accommodate more than one resident per room.
It was noted that Mr. Seibel had, in the past, represented another boarding house project in the area. He was asked to suggest how the Board could decide when a request of this nature was appropriate. He replied this could be done on a block-by-block basis, looking at the specific parking situation and demands.
Charles Hummilberg, 1414 Tennessee, explained he owned the rental property next door, on which the existing staircase encroached. He was pleased to hear the stairway would be removed, but was concerned that the proposed addition would allow dedication of more existing space to larger bedrooms and nicer amenities. He suggested this would attract higher-income residents who were more likely to own cars, or allow double-occupancy of the rooms.
marci fransisco, 1101 Ohio, said she had been a member of the Oread Neighborhood Association since it was founded and that parking had been a constant concern. The association had been working for several years to address the issue, trying to get the parking requirements revised for redevelopment and forwarding concerns to the City for any project in the area.
Ms. fransisco discussed previous boarding house projects, noting that the development at 1334 Ohio had no opportunity to provide parking. The association supported renovation, but through the use of regular ordinances and processes, not the continual application of variances to properties and projects that were not unique. The association would like to work with the City to create regulations that would apply uniformly.
It was noted that previous boarding house project represented by Mr. Seibold had included a request for 10 bedrooms, not the 12 proposed here, meaning possibly 2-4 fewer cars.
Ms. fransisco shared Mr. Hummilberg’s concerned that the proposed addition would allow more of the existing space to be used for bedrooms and suggested the Board deny the addition and make the applicant work with the existing space.
Fred Sack, Oread resident agreed that parking was a continual issue and said he would support a parking permit system.
Candace Davis, President of the Oread Neighborhood Association, referenced the university’s claim that residents of the Scholarship Halls would be required to use existing parking garages. She said there was no choice but to trust that this would occur, although she was skeptical about the university’s ability to enforce this requirement.
Ms. Davis was concerned about the precedent approving multiple boarding houses in the area. She was pleased that the historic homes were being preserved, but felt that “packing people in these beautiful homes” was an “overuse” of the properties.
Ms. Davis said the neighborhood association believed variances should be approved for more rare and unique circumstances than were presented here.
Tiffany Knearem, area resident, explained she lived in a similar development and that many residents owned cars, even if they walked to campus. She commented that many of these drivers had to park quite a distance away and that there were some safety concerns with walking home after dark.
Chairman Herndon called 5-minute recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:55.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Chairman Herndon said everyone understood parking was an obvious problems and, despite his appreciation for tonight’s speakers, he was somewhat surprised to hear neighbors speak so strongly in opposition of the project when they have asked for similar variances. He questioned the likelihood that more than one resident would occupy a single bedroom in this structure and felt this was a distracting point.
It was suggested that it would be useful to see a proposed floor plan to determine how the proposed addition integrated into the plan.
It was discussed that, if several structures in the area made similar conversions (reducing parking requirements and providing more spaces), the parking situation would improve.
It was stated that a “perfect” project was rarely seen and this proposal seemed to create a better environment.
Mr. Hannon said he strongly supported reuse of these older buildings, with the understanding that some modernization was unavoidable. He said the parking issue would continue to be a problem, but no one would buy and renovate these properties without getting a return on their investment, which meant “filling [the houses] with people”. It must be acknowledged that the existing parking requirements were a regulation that could not be met and perhaps it was time to think about changing those requirements to realistically address existing conditions.
Mr. Fizell commented as side-note that it was possibly inappropriate for the Chair to speak first in discussions, since it unavoidably influenced the opinions of other members. He referenced the issue at hand by suggesting the city should decide if this area was an appropriate location for boarding houses and, if not, change the regulations to disallow them (new zoning district or revised allowable uses). Mr. Fizell added that permit parking should be pursued if it was a reasonable answer to the parking problem.
It was suggested that it was not realistic to claim a hardship for this property, since it was similar to many properties in the area. Furthermore, the applicant’s desire for additional square footage (more living space) created the need for a variance. It would be possible to renovate and use the house in its existing state.
Mr. Fizell summarized that he was concerned about the intensity of the proposed use, but said he would be willing to support the project without the proposed addition. He suggested a condition limiting the number of spaces allotted for this property when and if permit parking was ever organized for the neighborhood.
Mr. Santee said he would also support the project with a few small changes, such as conditioning removal of the exterior stairs, reducing the number of bedrooms and possibly limiting how far the deck extended to the south.
Mr. Goans said the Board typically did not set policy, but would - unavoidably - set a policy precedent of allowing boarding houses in this area by approving another use of this type. He pointed out it was impossible to get more than 5 off-street parking spaces in the rear of any of the predominating 50’ lots in this neighborhood, and asked the Board to consider the basic question of how many occupants should be allowed with only 5 parking spaces. If the code were strictly applied, 5 spaces allowed only 6 bedrooms, which was not financially reasonable for many reuse developers.
Mr. Hicks said good points were made for both sides of the issue. He understood some people would like to see these older homes bought and renovated back into single-family homes, but he did not think that was a realistic expectation in this case. Mr. Hicks said he would like to see what could be done to reuse the house without the proposed addition.
Mr. Werner explained the redevelopment of the property required compliance with current building and fire codes. This was easier to accomplish with the addition. He said he would rather have occupancy limited than eliminate the addition.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Chairman Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hicks to approve the following variances for the project at 1416 Tennessee:
· Reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces from 9 to 5;
· Front yard setback from 25’ to the existing 14.5’;
· North side yard setback from 5’ to 3’ 3” (existing wall of residence);
· South side yard setback to remain at required minimum of 5’;
for the conversion of the residence to a boarding house with a maximum of 10 occupants/10 bedrooms. This variance was approved subject to the following conditions:
Motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Goans voting in opposition.
ITEM NO. 6: 1045 KENTUCKY STREET
B-06-14-04: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. Said requests are specifically to vary from the provisions of Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 25’ front building setback, a 25’ exterior side yard setback, and a 5’ interior side yard setback for structures from the property lines. The applicant is requesting variances to reduce these building setbacks to a 5’ front yard, 1’ exterior side yard, and 1’ interior side yard setback. These building setback variances are for existing conditions on the subject property. The applicant is also seeking variance approval for the number of off-street parking spaces required for a mixed-use development consisting of 6 apartments (studio and 1-bedroom size units) and offices on the first floor of the larger building to house the practices of Southwind Health Collective. Based upon the existing and proposed uses of the buildings, Sections 20-610.5, 20-610.10 and 20-1212 of said City Code require a minimum of 16 off-street parking spaces to be provided (9 spaces for the apartments + 7 spaces for the offices). The applicant is seeking a variance from the parking space requirements to reduce the number of spaces to a minimum of 4 spaces along the alley. Section 20-1216(a) of said City Code requires the off-street parking area to be set back from the street right-of-way a minimum of 15’. The applicant is requesting a variance from this Code provision. The applicant is also seeking variances from the paving, barriers and screening requirements of Sections 20-1214, 20-1215 and 20-1217 of said City Code in order to continue to use the parking spaces along the alley. These requests are submitted for the following legally described property: Lot 115 and the South 1’ of Lot 113 on Kentucky Street in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Said described property is generally known as 1045 Kentucky Street. Submitted by Caroline Micek and Brenda Sampson. Darrell and Brenda Sampson are the property owners of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Tully outlined the multiple variances associated with this request, including a reduction in the front, interior side yard and exterior side yard setbacks to meet existing conditions. Variances were also requested related to the existing rear parking area, which was not paved, curbed or screened to City standards and did not meet the required setback from the public right-of-way.
Although it was also an existing condition, Staff was primarily concerned with the amount of off-street parking available at the site, noting the conversion in use required more parking. A variance was requested to reduce the number of requires spaces from 16 to 4.
Staff recognized the size and lot layout limited the applicant’s ability to meet current development standards, but the Code required any proposal to modify the property must meet those standards. Staff therefore recommended denial of the project.
It was established that the Historic Resources Commission had not forwarded any comment regarding the proposal.
Mr. Tully noted that a letter was submitted from the First Christian Church across the street from the subject property, giving permission for clients of the proposed business to use the church parking lot. The Code allows off-site parking in place of the required on-site parking, but only if the off-site parking area is under the same ownership as the subject property and is within 300 feet of the primary entrance. The church lot did not meet these provisions, but the Board had the ability to modify these requirements in exceptional cases.
Mr. Tully responded to questioning that, although the church’s letter was received after the Staff Report was written, it had been expected. The church’s offer to use their parking lot did not alter Staff’s recommendation because it did not meet the Code requirements for alternate, off-site parking compliance.
It was verified that the building had historically been used residentially, although the existing RO zoning would allow mixed uses. If the historic use remained and no changes were made to the property, no variances would be needed.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Carolyn Micek spoke as a member of the Southwind Health Collective, giving background on the collective as a thriving business that had outgrown their current location and was looking for another space to occupy while staying in the downtown area.
Ms. Micek said the collective operated similar to a medical office, staggering clients and having no more than one appointment per employee at one time. Only three of the eight employees would be working at any given time.
Finding a suitable location with the correct zoning had been difficult, and this building was chosen in part because it was owned by a member of the collective. The business owners understood parking was a matter of concern, and Ms. Micek referenced the church’s offer of additional parking and the metered parking on 11th Street. She also explained that many of their clients lived nearby and walked to the collective’s offices.
Ms. Micek said clients would be told when making appointments where to find suitable parking (11th Street or the church parking lot). She pointed out that the business’s current location was not far from the proposed site, so it could be said that the business was not creating additional traffic (parking) in the area, only moving it. Furthermore, the new location faced less parking pressure than Kentucky or Tennessee Streets, which were closer to the current location.
Meeting ADA standards was important to this health-related business, and the applicants believed it would be possible to convert one existing parking space and use a (re)movable ramp over the stairs to meet these requirements. It was verified that this ramp would extend over the sidewalk but would be in place only when needed for a client.
The applicants did not know how expensive it would be to pave and curb the existing parking lot, but hoped this cost could be avoided because the lot would be used primarily for the residential property uses, not the new business. They were willing to look in to cost estimates for these improvements if the Board felt them necessary. It was possible the business would not be able to use this location if paving was required but was beyond the business’s budget.
It was established that the collective’s current location had no dedicated parking. Clients typically parked on Kentucky or 10th Street.
Cecilia Mills, another partner in the business, explained the collective did not own the building – it was owned by only one of the collective members and would be rented by the business. Although parking standards were the responsibility of the property owner, it was likely those expenses would be passed on to rental users. It was again noted that the rear parking was used primarily by the residents of the apartment section of the property.
PUBLIC COMMENT
James Dunn, 936 Kentucky, said he did not remember going through the Board when the existing operation was established across the street from his residence. He explained that, once a week, a delivery truck servicing the existing operation was parked in the middle of Kentucky Street, creating significant traffic problems. Mr. Dunn asked where this truck would park for deliveries at the new location.
The applicants addressed this issue by explaining the delivery truck was from a linen service that supplied several businesses in the area. This stop was similar to any of the delivery trucks parking in Massachusetts Street and lasted a similar amount of time – approximately 15-20 minutes, twice a week. The applicants would be willing to ask the truck driver to park in a legal parking stall in the rear of the business, but it was understood this was at the discretion of the driver and his ability to make deliveries from this location.
Greg Seibold, area resident, said he was not concerned abut the nature or impact of the proposed business, but asked if the variances would run with the property if the collective left the building in the future.
Mr. Seibold also addressed the parking issue and described options for providing the maximum number of spaces.
BOARD DISCUSSION
It was discussed that the property had been grandfathered in with its existing (less-than-required) setbacks when the Code was adopted. This was therefore the first time the property had been before the City, and this was only required because of the proposed reuse.
The Board discussed important points to be included in a possible motion, including tying the variances to the use, not the property, and support of ADA requirements. It was suggested that paving could be required with a set deadline, giving the collective time to find funding for the improvements. Staff suggested this could be a tenant improvement, included as part of the lease.
There was concern expressed that modifications to the building’s interior would make it unsuitable for future residential reuse. Joy diMaranville, another collective member, replied that an agreement would be signed with the property owner that all internal changes would be reversible.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Chairman Herndon, seconded by Mr. Hicks to approve the following variances for the project at 1045 Kentucky:
1. Reduction of the required minimum front yard setback from 25’ to 5’, the exterior side yard setback from 25’ to 1’, and the interior side yard setback 5’ to 1’;
2. Reduction of the number of required off-street parking spaces from 16 to 5, until such time that off-street parking provided at the First Christian Church (1000 Kentucky) is removed or revoked OR until the massage therapy practice ceases to occupy the property;
3. Reduction of the required minimum off-street parking setback from the public right-of-way from 15’ to 0’;
4. Elimination of the screening requirements for off-street parking areas;
5. Elimination of requirement to curb and gutter the off-street parking area to city standards; and
6. Within one (1) year of the date of this approval, the existing rear parking area must be resurfaced and striped to city standards to provide five (5) parking stalls, including at least one (1) parking space meeting ADA standards for handicapped-accessible parking.
Motion carried unanimously 7-0.
ITEM NO. 7: 1323 NEW YORK STREET
B-06-15-04: A request for a variance as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. The variance is from the provisions in Section 20-1312 of said City Code, which limits the size for an accessory structure to no greater than 30 percent of the required rear yard area. The applicant is asking for variance approval to construct an accessory building size of 520 s.f. (20’ x 26’), which is 70 s.f. larger than permitted by Code (450 s.f. allowed). The applicant is requesting the variance to allow for construction of a detached garage along the alley of said property. The property is located at 1323 New York Street and is legally described as: Lot 175 on New York Street in the Original Townsite of the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Submitted by Matt Jones, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESNTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the item, a request for variances to allow construction of a garage 520 square feet in size (20’ X 26’), which exceeded the maximum allowable rear yard coverage. The structure would be constructed 3 feet from the rear alley.
Staff recommended approval of variance, subject to a condition limiting the size of the garage to the 520 square feet proposed.
It was noted that the garage was proposed with a second story that would have full utility service but was not proposed as living quarters.
No comments were received from any area residents.
Mr. Patterson explained the property was before the Board in September 2003 and was granted a variance for a 15’ front yard setback.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Matt Jones, property owner, said he averaged measurements of the lots on his block and his own was 5’ deeper than the average. He felt this made his lot unique and made up for the 70’ of additional coverage requested in the rear yard. He also noted that his proposed garage would not be unusual in size and at least 5 existing neighborhood garages would be larger.
Mr. Jones stated the second story of the garage would be used as a painter’s studio and there was no intent to rent or otherwise use the space as a residence. He understood he might be required to sign an agreement of this nature before obtaining a building permit.
The applicant understood the Board’s precedent of allowing garages measuring 528 square feet (22’ X 24), but he felt the narrower structure (20’ X 26’) would better suit the lot.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No member of the public spoke on this item.
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board had no additional comments or questions.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Hannon, seconded by Mr. Goans to approve variances to allow construction of a garage at 1323 New York Street as proposed, subject to the following condition:
1. The detached garage shall be limited to 520 square feet (20’ X 26’).
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 8: 1632 ALABAMA STREET
B-06-16-04: A request for an exception and a variance as provided in Sections 20-1708 and 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. Said exception request is specifically to allow one side yard setback to be reduced to no less than 3’ provided that the sum of the two side yards for the subject property total at least the sum of the two required side yard setbacks for the zoning district governing the property. The requested variance is from the provisions of Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 30’ building setback for structures from the rear property line. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the setback to 21’ to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing residence. The request is submitted for the following legally described property: Lot 7, Block 4, University Place Addition in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Said described property is generally known as 1632 Alabama Street. Submitted by Gary O’Doniel for Donald L. Phipps, property owner of record.
This request was withdrawn by the applicant prior to the meeting.
ITEM NO. 9: 3503 W. 9TH COURT
B-06-17-04: A request for variances as provided in Section 20-1709.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the City of Lawrence, Kansas, 2003. Said requests are specifically to vary from the provisions of Section 20-608 of said City Code, which requires a 25’ building setback for structures from the front property line. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the setback to 3.5’ to allow a recently erected accessory carport covering the driveway to remain. The second variance is from the provision of Section 20-1311 of said City Code that states, “an accessory building in a residential district shall be located to the rear of the front building line…” The request is submitted for the following legally described property: Lot 1, Holiday Hills No. 5 in the City of Lawrence, Douglas County, Kansas. Said described property is generally known as 3503 W. 9th Court. Submitted by L. Anne Spencer, property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson described the requested variances that would bring into compliance the existing carport over the driveway on the corner lot at 3503 W. 9th Court. The carport was located in front of the property and encroached into the required front yard setback.
Staff presented photographs of the existing carport, located in front of the existing two-car, attached garage.
The existing carport was constructed in 2003 without a building permit, and had recently been brought to the attention of the enforcement department by an area resident.
Feedback from the neighborhood following notification of the variance request included two calls to Staff and one letter presented this evening.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Loren Pearson, property owner, said there had been no neighborhood opposition to the carport until recently. He suggested other neighborhood events had resulted in harsh feelings that prompted the complaint to Neighborhood Resources.
Mr. Pearson explained in response to questioning that they did not want to move the carport to the side yard because of an existing utility easement and a mature tree that would have to be removed.
Mr. Pearson responded to devaluation concerns expressed by other area residents, saying the carport was less of a negative influence than recent rental residents, who received no complaints.
It was established that the two-car garage held two cars, and the applicants used the carport to protect four additional vehicles from possible damage from limbs falling from the existing tree next to the driveway. Mr. Pearson stated that all vehicles on the property were tagged and property taxes were current.
Mr. Pearson presented a letter from area residents who could not attend the meeting but supported the request.
PUBLIC COMMENT
John Olmstead, owner of the referenced rental property, said he supported neighborhood improvement and that he was converting the rental property into a single-family home. He expressed concern that approving this carport would encourage other area residents to devalue the area by adding similar structures to their homes.
Mr. Olmstead said the potentially damaging tree branches could be removed from the existing tree. He noted that he was the only one willing to oppose the project in person, and suggested this was because he did not live in the area. He thought area residents were afraid to oppose the project because it would create bad feelings between neighbors.
Kevin Woo, 3502 W. 9th Court, listed the following concerns with the proposal:
· Property devaluation
· Precedent for other houses in the area with cars in the driveway and trees overhanging (he suggested professional tree trimming)
· Overcrowding the subject property
· Purpose of building code is to reduce the impact of an individual property on its surroundings
· Existing carport is not compatible to other structures
BOARD DISCUSSION
Chairman Herndon stated this proposal was far from compliance with code intent. He felt the purpose of the code was to prevent neighborhoods from becoming “jungles of these types of structures”.
Mr. Goans agreed the structure was “out of conformance in every conceivable way.” Mr. Hannon also agreed and indicated his concern that the structure was erected without a building permit. He suggested the existing carport be removed as soon as possible.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Fizell, seconded by Chairman Herndon to deny the variance requests for the carport structure at 3503 W. 9th Court.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ITEM NO. 10: MISCELLANEOUS
A. Request to extend variances approved for the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints located at 19th Street & Naismith.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Mr. Hicks, seconded by Mr. Goans to grant a 90-day extension to the variances approved for the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints located at 19th Street & Naismith.
Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
ADJOURN – 11:00
Official minutes are on file in the Planning Department.